Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The case Rhode v. Bonta, originally Rhode v. Becerra, is challenging Proposition 63's requirement for background checks to purchase ammunition as well as its prohibition against importation of ammunition into the state by residents, unless importation takes place through a licensed ammunition dealer.
In Duncan v. Becerra and Rhode v. Becerra, he struck down portions of 2016 California Proposition 63 that prohibited possession of high-capacity magazines and required background checks for ammunition purchases, respectively. The state appealed both decisions; [7] the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta was reversed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of ...
In Rhode v. Becerra, Benitez issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of California's 2016 Proposition 63 law requiring background checks for ammunition sales, ruling in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association; he deemed the law "constitutionally defective." [16] [17] The Ninth Circuit stayed Benitez's ruling pending ...
Bonta as a victory in the state’s ongoing campaign to curb gun violence. In the case, plaintiffs sought to prevent researchers from accessing data on firearms purchases in California, saying it ...
25 of the very best deals from Nordstrom's Half-Yearly Sale: Rothy's, Le Creuset, Hoka and more. AOL. This money-saving kitchen gadget helps me eat healthier. AOL.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. This case challenged California's requirement for non-profit organizations such as the Thomas More Law Center to disclose the identity of their donors to California's Attorney General in order to solicit donations in the state. The case was consolidated with Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta.
In cases like Ms. Katie’s, Rob Bonta is fighting back When a warehouse goes up down the street, and residents find a new chaos that won’t leave, they seek justice.